Either employing long-term wisdom or momentary political acumen, President Barack Obama was right last week not to mix up an overwhelming feeling of grief and mourning over the Newtown tragedy with the classic debate about gun control. Still, the question has been raised by pundits like Jeffrey Sachs and political leaders like Dianne Feinstein, and will inevitably be raised again and again: since massacres happen, and are usually perpetrated with firearms, is it not reasonable to repeal the Second Amendment, or at least to interpret it in the most restrictive way?

Jeffrey Sachs contends that John Howard, the iconic conservative prime minister of Australia, when faced in 1996 with a killing spree in Port-Arthur, Tasmania (35 casualties), introduced federal gun-control legislation, and that it worked. Indeed, the country has been spared another Port-Arthur ever since then.

But there was at least one multiple killing case: the Monash University killing in 2002 where a foreign student shot seven people and killed two. Moreover, Sachs disregards the fact that there was no significant decrease in Australia since 1996 regarding global levels of crime, violence, and homicide. Restrictions on legally purchased and owned weapons simply induced would-be killers to resort to black-market purveyors, or to turn to other ways of killing.

The same is true of many other countries. Most Americans may not be aware of it, but attacks on children and teenagers are nowadays as prevalent in China — a country where ordinary citizens are not allowed to own firearms, even selectively — as in the United States.

No less than 21 children and teenagers were killed in China at school premises by adult intruders using knives and hammers over the past three years, and about one hundred were injured. The latest reported case happened exactly the same day — Friday, December 14 — as the Newtown multiple killing: a man randomly stabbed 22 children at an elementary school in Chenpeng, a village in the Henan province. None of the victims died. But it was more a matter of good luck than anything else.

Democratic countries with selective gun-control regimes are not immune to actual or attempted massacres, including massacres of schoolchildren or students. France is still reeling from the onslaught on a Jewish school in Toulouse last spring. Mohamed Merah, the jihadist murderer, was equipped with both an automatic gun and a handgun. His intention was clearly to use the automatic gun in order to kill as many children and teachers as possible. When he realized that this weapon was jammed, he switched to the handgun, and thus killed “only” three preteens and one teacher.

There were other cases in France. Back in 2002, a depressive humanitarian militant, Richard Durn, entered the Nanterre City Hall and shot one by one the 27 members of the local City Council. Eight died on the spot ; nineteen were wounded and managed to survive. Even earlier, in 1993, failed entrepreneur Eric Schmitt took a whole kindergarten hostage in Neuilly. Although he was equipped with guns and explosives, he envisioned cutting the throats of at least six of the children. RAID, the French police’s special branch, moved in before he could act.

Norway is another democratic country with restrictive gun regulations. That did not prevent Anders Behring Breivik from randomly shooting students on Utoya island near Oslo in 2011, and killing 69 of them.

A comparison between world weapons statistics and world homicide statistics is even more intriguing. Unsurprisingly, the United States comes first in terms of weapons, with 88.8 weapons for 100 residents. However, its intentional homicide rate is not horrendous by international standards: 4.2 homicides for 100,000 residents.

This compares against 10.2 for Russia, 16.9 for Mexico, 31.8 for South Africa, and 45.1 for Venezuela — countries that, all of them, have under 15 weapons per 100 residents.

Not only that and I know this from beating down a liberal with it when he insisted gun friendly states have more gun related homicides; that if you break it down even further, by county, you’ll find that some states homicide rates are due to a county with, how you say, a large urban populace.

The lynch mobs out to hang the 2nd Amendment and those who defend it, like all lynch mobs everywhere, are basically lacking any real evidence against what and whom they wish to destroy. Not only are they ignorant about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms, they at least for now claim to exonerate revolvers as objects of their wrath (they’ll no doubt want to get rid of them sooner or later). This is because they seem to think: (1) all revolvers are alike and (2) revolvers are very different from semi-automatic handguns. For those of you not familiar with handguns, the following is offered.

Surprise, double action revolvers using visible hammers are quite a bit like semi-autos. When a semi-auto is fired by a trigger pull, another round is loaded and the weapon is cocked. To fire, reload, and cock, the semi-auto trigger does triple duty. A double-action revolver trigger pull also cocks the weapon , revolves the cylinder to a new round, and fires the weapon. Another trigger pull revolves the cylinder to a new round, cocks the weapon, and again fires the weapon. The cocking and firing action take place almost at once so that the cocking may seem to be simultaneous. Careful and slow trigger pulling of an empty double-action revolver, however, will reveal that the weapon is indeed cocked before the hammer goes down. This is triple duty as well, cocking, reloading and firing…not so different. The single-action revolver cannot fire a round until cocked, usually by the thumb or the palm of the hand, but revolves the cylinder to a new round when it is cocked, so it must be cocked before each round is fired, double duty. (I have never held a revolver with a hidden hammer, so I can’t say anything about the cocking of this type of handgun.)

Single action = must be cocked in a separate action before firing.
Double action = pulling the trigger cocks the weapon before firing

I was a bit uneasy about my statement that there is a distinct cocking in a double-action trigger pull. So I got little Fed out again, made sure again it was empty, and tried it several more times. Conclusion: I’m not so sure. Maybe one of our more knowledgeable associates could settle this once and for all.

In DA revolvers, there are two basic searage setups, the Galand-Schmidt (aka “Colt-type”) and the Smith & Wesson. The S&W is further divided into two subtypes, the “long” and “short” actions, so called because of the length of the hammer movement arc.

Generally, experienced revolver shooters “way back when” (pre-1960) liked the “long” S&W action, which gave a very smooth trigger pull of about 11 pounds once it had “worn in” a bit. This setup did, in fact, have a slight “step” you could feel just before the sear released. The Colt action also had this, right up to the time Colt stopped making DA revolvers; that action had a different internal geometry, but got the same results. The Colt, BTW, had a consistent 12-pound trigger pull.

The post-1960 “short” S&W action has no such “step”; it’s a straight pull-through of about 11 pounds, start to finish. Revolver shooters of the older generation would debate loudly and long about which was better. (Myself, I prefer the Colt type, but most of my revolvers over the years had that rampant stallion on the side.)

DA self-loaders with such a “step” include the Walther P-38 and pistols using clones of its searage. The 1954 Stoeger “Shooter’s Bible” description of the pistols (which they offered in reconditioned form) stated, “ There is a distinct ‘step’ in the trigger takeup just before sear release. You can feel it, and know that a very slight additional pressure will fire the pistol.”

My Beretta M92FS had just such a “step” in the pull. (I no longer own it, having grown a bit leery of it after a trigger-return spring breakage that could have been catastrophic in an IA situation.)

“Fanning” consists of holding the Colt Single Action Army’s trigger all the way back and rapidly “slapping” the hammer back repeatedly with the palm of the “off” hand. As the hammer comes back, the cylinder rotates, bringing a loaded chamber topside, and when your hand slips past the hammer spur, the hammer, not being “caught” by the sear, drops, firing the piece.

With practice, a Colt “Peacemaker” can be emptied of five rounds in about 1.4 seconds by a trick-shot artist. That’s a “cyclic rate” of about 214 rounds per minute, equal to the practical burst-fire rate of a tripod-mounted, belt-fed Browning Model 1919 .30 caliber air-cooled machine gun. It looks really impressive, especially in a movie or on TV.

It’s also a lousy idea, for several reasons.

First, it hurts- you. Your off-hand palm will look like hamburger from contact with that spur after two or three tries.

Second, it’s dangerously inaccurate; unless you’ve got wrist muscles like Hercules, the recoil will throw the muzzle up, and up, and up, until your last couple of shots endanger birds and low-flying aircraft. And the muzzle tends to wander from side-to-side, as well.

Third, it’s hard on the gun. Think chipped and worn sear and hammer noses, to the point where trying to cock the revolver normally can result in a “hair-trigger” discharge. Not to mention the damage done to the hammer itself; I’ve seen SAA hammers bent by this stunt. (Especially common on some foreign “clone gun” Peacemakers with somewhat “soft” metallurgy.)

In the past, trick-shot artists made up special “fanning guns”, with the triggers tied back, or even removed, and a larger, smooth “fanning spur” welded up on the hammer, and polished, to make the stunt less damaging to their hands. But this was strictly “show-off” a stunt used in Wild West shows and etc., not a recognized “combat shooting” technique on the actual frontier.

It may have gotten started because some mother’s son got confused about the term “slip gun”. A “slip gun” was a Peacemaker with no trigger, usually due to a damaged sear, hammer nose, or trigger nose.

To keep the revolver usable until a replacement could be obtained, the trigger and sear (aka “bolt”) would be removed, and the revolver fired by using the thumb of the shooting hand to draw the hammer back to the full-cock position as usual- and then just allow it to “slip” out from under the thumb, firing the piece.

This points out one of the chief virtues of the Colt Single Action Army; the fact that in an emergency, it could be fired with half its guts shattered, or just plain missing. The same could not be said for its competitor, the Smith & Wesson Schofield top-break single-action .45.

Now you know why the Colt was the U.S. Army’s standard service pistol from 1872 to 1891, and why the Schofield was a “limited” or “substitute” standard; it just wasn’t as “soldier-proof” as the Colt. BTW, the SAA actually remained in limited service officially until just before World War One, there not always being enough Colt Model 1905 New Service .45 double-action revolvers and Model 1911 .45 automatics to go around.

But armorers could always scrape up a few “thumb-busters” from stores when needed. And they just about always worked.

The problem here is a boy-man with a psychiatric problem compounded by his mother who had these lethal weapons in the house. What a role model.

What on earth is to be accomplished by running around shrieking, “More! Nationwide! Gun! Control! Now!” when there are already millions of them stashed around individually, literally everywhere? It’s too late now for “control” of these.

Psychological screening of buyers AND sellers seems the sensible way to start, with a review of those already “licensed” to show compelling need.

Unless we have definite proof, you can not blame the mother. It’s a fact that many single women, which includes divorcees, do not feel safe. These are the same women who voted for Obama, their Big Daddy.

Before 9-11, hubby & I had an enlightening conversation with a certified NRA instructor in Fairfield County, CT. He told us that there are many women esp in the middle to upper class towns, (like Newtown, CT) who took private lessons from him.

Nancy Lanza grew up with guns, saw how her male relatives became responsible men around guns, & probably thought it would work for her son. It seems this divorced woman had an ex-husband who did not spend much time with his son. Under these circumstances Nancy Lanza tried her best alone to raise this boy into a responsible young man.

Whoa – what about a gun safe and locking up the guns like most responsible gun owners do? If personal safety (from an outside threat) is a concern there are numerous small “quick access” single pistol safes that work great. This situation may very well have been avoided if Nancy Lanza would have followed a very simple and safe method of securing her firearms.

What makes you believe that she didn’t have them locked up? Since she was worried about the boy and was going to have him committed (the thing that alledegedly set him off) it is more logical to assume that the guns were locked up than not.

You seem to forget that the first person killed was his mother. You forget that many of those quick access safes have fingerpring scanners. Not real hard to drag her body to the safe and press her finger to the opening mechanism. How about keys? Dead people don’t complain much if you take them. Combination? The kid was “wicked smart” according to one peer, its often not too hard to figure out passwords or combinations of people you know very well.

This is a circumstance when ‘intellectualizing’ serves no purpose nor any just remedy. This discussion and circumstance has everything to do with an extreme ‘abuse’ of a constitutionally protected right. Abuse of the interpretation of the Second Amendment and abuse of the manufacturing, sales and uses of the weapons types involved.

It takes no intellectual genius to understand that when we have to send our children to high tech prisons to be safely educated, there is a societal problem that needs to be eradicated regardless of what the threats origin is or that some minority of the population declares it a constitutional freedom!

All laws come only from the irresponsibile abuse of a freedom! When the ‘consequences’ of a particular freedom ‘cannot be controlled’ its time to eliminate at least a ‘relative portion’ of the origin.

The capacity of any weapon to overwhelm innocent human victims and kill dozens in only a couple of minutes is simply a societal problem that cannot be condoned any longer. The solution has nothing to do with disturbing the context of second amendment, hunting, defending ones self, sports shooting or defending against a tyranical government. The latter attempted defense by some is constitutionally DOA! That argument is constitutionally provide for and granted to the states and their organized malitia. Otherwise, the concept of military and military style weapons is constitutionally and statutorily granted to the organized militaries. Function is the sole descriptor of what is a military or military style weapon.

You are correct and the second amendment which is the God given right to self defense includes the use of any weapon that will eliminate the threat to ones-self or his family using any means necessary.

In this case you had a nut case that got a hold of weapon(s) that he did not legally acquire according to the many laws on record they did nothing to stop someone who was gonna do what he did.

It is insanity to try to pass a law to prevent insane actions as was this case, at least he did not have access to a nuclear weapon and try to take out the whole town!

I can appreciate your attempts to defend what you believe the constitution says. But like so many people, they think they’re quoting or interpreting the constitution when in fact they’re not. The far right social movement (Tea Party) are always claiming to be quoting the constitution to support their positions when in fact, what they quote is the Declaration of Independence.

The controlling document for governance of the states and the three branches of the federal government, is the constitution. You will find no place in the constitution that states “… Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as the standard of governance and individual freedoms in our republic.

As to the comment “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States recognizes a preexisting right and tells the government not to mess with the right.”

Original text of the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In 2008 the Supreme Court settled the long decades of legal debate of the interpretation of the original text. The Supreme Court definitively held that the Second Amendment protects 1) an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and 2) to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and 3)this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

Heres where ‘your’ argument fail.

1. Malitia’s was not disturbed but confirmed as “well regulated malitia’s to be that of states malitia’s.

2. Individual right to own and bear arms for the **TRADITIONAL** lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home and of course hunting, target shooting, etc.

Starting to see the light yet? In other words there is no constitutionally protected right to own and bear arms that are weapons of war or resemble such weapons by design and or function.

Two things will happen next. There will be a move to ban such weapons and or ban the high capacity magazines of such weapons. If the latter is the case, the problem returns to the spot light rather quickly because the ban will be routinely violated. Then comes an outright ban of the involved weapons themselves.

Thats the reality and the majority of citizens are in support of either legal rendering at this time.

You do understand since the enthronement of the Blight Bringer that “We the People” have acquired about 10 million small arms, 100 million “hi-cap” magazines and 100s of billions of rounds of ammunition for the same. Last year and this, Black Friday was Black Rifle Friday in case you hadn’t noticed. What do you suppose that means? I am certainly not going to volunteer to kick in any doors. How about you? Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

“The Civil War was fought in ten thousand places…”
David McCullough, The Civil War a Film By Ken Burns

In fact, the Second Amendment has been held by SCOTUS to specifically protect possession of “military-type” weapons.

In the U.S. vs. Miller (1938) decision, the Federal District Court of Western Arkansas had held that the National Firearms Act of 1934′s prohibition of a short-barrelled (i.e., “sawed-off”) shotgun (one with barrel[s] less than 18″ in length) was unconstitutional because sawed-off shotguns were recognized as suitable for military use.

The Supreme Court overturned the District Court decision, specifically stating that the Second Amendment was intended to protect civilian possession of standard military arms, whatever they may be, for purposes of self-defense. And that since a sawed-off shotgun was not considered such, its classification by the NFA as “any other weapon” for tax and registration purposes does not violate the Constitution.

Seen in the light of U.S. vs. Miller (1938), it could be argued that the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, and the attempts to revive it now, are both unconstitutional precisely because they openly and above-board attempt to prohibit “military-style weapons”.

This probably explains why, when you mention the decision to supposed scholars of Constitutional law who support gun bans, they either (a) have “officially” never heard of the decision, and/or (b) want to change the subject very quickly.

Or to put it simply, the Second Amendment wasn’t written about “hunting” or “target” weapons. Except insofar as they were, and are, useful for self-defense.

The Government has messed with the Second Amendment right for decades.

You do NOT have the right to own: Stinger missiles; RPGs; machine guns; mortars; tanks; attack aircraft; etc.

Despite what the Second Amendment says about “a well regulated militia,” the American people do NOT have the right to be just as heavily armed as the National Guard. The courts have ruled on that, multiple times.

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights is an absolute. Freedom of expression does not include incitement to riot, starting a panic, etc. And what the TSA at airports has done to the Constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure is notorious.

So what we’re really discussing is where to draw the line. In legislation and the courts, the line has usually been drawn between self-defense and offense.

That is, you have the right to whatever weapons it takes to stop a criminal from committing mayhem. You do NOT have the right to sufficient firepower to bomb the White House and overthrow the government.

The courts are wrong – but then, their salaries are being paid by the government, so what can we expect?

We SHOULD have enough firepower to overthrow the government, should it become tyrannical (which it already HAS). That is exactly why our Founders wanted us to have firearms (the state-of-the-art weapons of the day). If the citizens had tanks, warplanes, and so forth, that would have served to deter aggression on the part of the federal government, and we would not be in the mess we are in today.

Function is the sole descriptor of what is a military or military style weapon.

Ass, this is a hole in the ground. Hole in the ground, this is an ass. Now you recognize each other. The function of all guns is to kill. That is the reason man fist sent a projectile down a bamboo pipe oh so many centuries ago. The standard ‘hunting’ rifle was once and still is, a military weapon. As firearms have been technologically developed for military pursuits, they have found their way into public hands as civilian variants. In the 50s, surplus WWII rifles could be bought for less than a days wages by anyone without all the gun grabbing nonsense that accompanies today firearms purchases.

The lever action rifles that came into production at the end of the Civil War, were commonplace for western pioneers, settlers, and cowboys. Shooting sports is an unfortunate bone thrown to gun grabbers as a defense of their firearm purchases when really no defense should have been required.. A gun is a killing weapon, that’s its function, be it for assault or defense.

Sorry old chap! The ‘PURPOSE’ of and for guns is to kill. Mechanical design and FUNCTION on the other hand as relating to guns or anything mechanical, defines the perameter of application (any of a set of physical properties whose values determine the characteristics or behavior of something). High capacity magazines were explicitly developed and designed to benefit the battlefield environment of war. Likewise for the weapons with features of semi and full automatic fire capabilities.

Your history lesson on the mechanics of guns is irrelevant. We people and guns and reality have evolutionized into the 21st century.

Evolutionized??? Well, if you say so, Zekie, but we have also evolved. And guess what we have evolved into. We have evolved into an appreciation of the facts that concealed and open carry gun laws, based on the Constitution, can deter violent crimes and enhance self defense and defense of innocent others when under immediate threat of severe bodily harm or death [see George Zimmerman vs media lynch mob]. Ask some Germans, they’ll tell ya.

Today the NRA held a press conference during which they pointed out the fact that good guys with guns stop evil guys with guns. They talked about societal influences in movies, TV and video games that affect how our children think. They noted that President Obama has eliminated emergency planning grants from the budget and plans to eliminate the Secure Our Schools policing grants from next year’s budget.

The media will cover none of this. They will only say that the NRA wants more guns. They will cover the Code Pink protesters yelling: “Ban assault weapons now! The NRA has blood on its hands!”

Ann Coulter’s latest column pointed out that what has stopped mass murderers, including the Connecticut killer last week, were armed police or armed citizens. When police with guns show up, the killers either commit suicide (e.g., Adam Lanza), are killed or captured. But it takes time for the police to be notified and arrive, which is why citizens have a human and constitutional right to be allowed to defend themselves against criminals.

Liberals see only one answer to everything: more government and fewer individual rights. That’s why “gun control” is their answer to mass shootings. They don’t really want to look into the problem or consider any solution that is inconsistent with their statist goals.

What the hell does “evolutionized” mean? Looks like you’re ignorant on biology. Since you’re so keen about the future, let me remind you that gun control is obsolete in the 21st century. Home 3d printers printing out guns. You have lost the future Zeke.

Zeke — Function is the sole descriptor of what is a military or military style weapon.

This is all largely moot. Firearms have been around for centuries and are well understood. In days past the knowledge of the engineering required to produce a weapon was limited. It took centuries from the introduction of firearms to get to the point of the invention of the gun that won the west. What governed the limitations of firearms for individuals was centralisation of information or manufacture.

Gun control advocacy is victorian in approach, as if information were tightly guarded and manufacturing specialised — yeah we’re talking mid 1800′s industrial thinking process here. In today’s world in the west any sufficiently motivated individual with spare time and access to a modern machine shop can manufacture automatic weapons. The concept of information control is now lost with the internet. The genie is out.

As I see it what stops massive killing in places like Australia isn’t limitation iof much of anything other than generally keeping weapons out of the hands of idiots; as a rule those capable of manufacturing their own weaponry just aren’t that interested in shooting up movie houses or grade schools.

In sum you can control guns and describe them as military or not and the only thing you accomplish is keeping them out of the hands of those who really ought not own them in the first place (i.e. disenfranchised urban youth.) But gun control would not affect the ability of the citizenry. Firearms are well understood and taking away fireams from the clever citizens would be about as effective as (and technologically equivalent to) banning kitchen cabinet making. The intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is kept alive in spirit by being able to make guns in a hurry. Decentralisation of usable knowledge accomplishes the same thing.

I don’t advocate gun control. I regard it as stupid. I have many guns. Take them away. I’ll make my own, and I’ll teach others how. In 6 months the number of guns in my area will INCREASE. And I’ll be wary and pissed.

“I don’t advocate gun control. I regard it as stupid. I have many guns. Take them away. I’ll make my own, and I’ll teach others how. In 6 months the number of guns in my area will INCREASE. And I’ll be wary and pissed.”

Exactly, I would be no different and I have pointed this out to “liberals” over and over. I was a toolmaker for 14 years and now a mechanical designer for the last 6 years. If it can be drawn I can machine it, and I can draw anything.

Infact I bet i would be making alot more money per year as the value of each gun would be tripple what they are now.

I understand your point(s). I have many various guns and have a sizable military collection. I had 34 years of combined active and reserve military service so I have a pretty good idea of the sphere of weaponry on the battlefield and in peace. I also have decades of expeirence with weapons as simply a common citizen. I’ve yet to find a person who can ‘legitimately’ qualify the merging of the two classes of weaponry on any basis of need.

I agree with all your other points of human nature and the fact that with the right skills and equipment or an association with such, guns of any kind can be somewhat easily modified and or manufactured to some special specs. Afterall, I live in the deep south where that is all to commonplace. That said, heres a point to ponder. ALL the civilian carnage in the U.S. over the decades has been through the hands of ‘common citizens’ who have either purchased or stolen weapons legally manufactured and sold to the general public.

There has to be limitiations set by law for the ‘common good’ of society and I think it is time for such a discussion concerning the ‘types’ of weaponry legally made available to the general society. As you say though there will be those who can and are will the chance cobbling up even more dangerous means to crearte more carnage.

Now, if you’ll kindly excuse me, I’ve got to get my RC helo armed up with some laser guided munitions and go get a deer Xmas dinner.

1) We’ve made murder illegal, that doesn’t seem to have much effect on a segment of our population in regards to commiting it. Did stop this kid that’s for sure.

2) It’s illegal in many states for anyone with psychiatric issues to own a regulated fire arm. So he commited a crime by stealing them from his mother, AFTER he murdered her.

3) Do you live in a bubble? Prohibition did not stop people from drinking and making drugs illegal has not stopped people from getting high. We cannot stop millions of people and tons upon tons of drugs from crossing our borders every year. What makes you believe that criminals will be unable to obtain guns if they are outlawed?

4) A determined person or persons determined to do harm will do so, he could have learned to build a bomb on the internet, used poison gas from household chemicals, he could have used his vehicle to run them down at recess or any number of ways to do harm.

” None of the victims died. But it was more a matter of good luck than anything else.”
Of course, if you will call all the facts contradicting your point of view “matter of good luck”, then you always can feel that you are absolutely right.

I love how the Left rants about the “powerful gun lobby” and carries on about how the “majority of Americans” want stronger gun control while conveniently ignoring the cognitive disconnect. If such a powerful interest exists to PROTECT gun rights that elected officials choose to side with them rather than risk losing their positions, then how can a MAJORITY oppose gun rights?
Sure, you can ban all the scary black guns and big magazines (they are NOT “clips”) and you will feel safer for a short while. Then someone will figure out that you get the same number of bullets from 3 10-round magazines as you do from 1 30-round magazine (math is clearly not a strength of this position). Now you’re back to square one. And this is all intentional. The problem is not solved, but the proverbial slope is nice and greasy and eventually there is a big red line through the 2nd Amendment. That exists to protect us from the government as much as anything else.
Here is the perfect example of why “strong gun control” is an absolute farce. There are laws in many states against texting or using a cell phone while driving. Yet people still do it, flagrantly even, because it’s really a hard law to enforce. People will conspicuously look around to make sure that cops aren’t watching, even pretending to look straight forward. They KNOW they are breaking the law, and they don’t care because the consequence is so much less significant than the ability to do what they want to do. Criminals feel the same way about gun laws. And the 500 pound gorilla in the room? Car accidents, DUIs and distracted driving kill more people every year than guns.
But massacres like Sandy Hook are get more attention, which feeds into the motives of these terrorists who want their 15 minutes. So the media eats it up.
Talk about a self-licking ice cream cone.

The problem with a magazine restriction is that it doesn’t really matter for the person hell bent on performing a mass shooting. The Virginia Tech shooter had 19 loaded magazines for his pistols. 2 15 round magazines hold the same # of bullets as 3 10 round magazines. You are only adding about 3-5 seconds of time to the shooting of all 30 bullets. The recent shooter in Newton had 20 minutes of time. He would have had plenty of time to fire 5 30 round magazines, or 15 10 round magazines, it really makes no difference. Even loading a revolver by hand (no speedloaders), he could have loaded and fired it easily 2-3 times a minute (12-18 rounds a minute), more with speedloaders. Someone else on this forum pointed out in another article that even with a musket he could have fired 60-80 times in the 20 minutes he had available.

The current media has come to labeling anything over 10 rounds as a ‘high capacity’ magazine. This is completely false. 10 was an arbitrary number determined by the assault weapons ban of 1994. The Glock 17, one of the most popular pistols sold today holds 17 rounds. 17 is the STANDARD CAPACITY for this pistol. It is what it was designed for. The media has routinely called this a ‘high cap’ mag and a 10 a standard cap mag. False. 17 is standard, and 10 is low capacity. High capacity magazines have reliability problems, something Glock would not want in their pistol and something they would have fixed before (or shortly after) releasing their pistol.

Both Jared Laughner and the Aurora shooter were using true high cap magazines, and both suffered a weapon malfunction. Jared was using an after market 30 rouund stick mag for his glock and it jammed. The aurora shooter was using a 100 round beta ‘c’ mag and it also jammed. A standard capacity magazine would not be that unreliable.

You know, I think you are right. There is no reason why communities should not band together to create, fund and manage their own schools in the manner they see fit. The cost ought to be borne by parents with kids in school supplemented by voluntary contributions to cover those who cannot afford it.

We are led like sheep by our State and Federal government doing the bidding of the unions. This is very much related to the gun issue in that it involves the control freaks among us taking charge and dictating to the rest of us because they feel it is best for our society. When it turns out badly, they are experts at re-directing blame for their massive and expensive failures on the those who may have tried to check them along the way.

I spent an hour yesterday writing, revising, proofreading, and finishing a comment for this article. It vanished into the ether. I’d copied it just before submitting it, so I tried again. It vanished into the ether again.

That wasn’t the first time this has happened; it is, however, the last.

You’ll see an Egyptian ankh (no, seriously) in the bottom-screen Firefox toolbar. Or just right-click on your form space, and it will come up in the usual toolbox, marked “Recover Text” and “Recover Form”.

I teach at a large Central Texas high school, and I have a CHL. Currently, if attacked, I will defend your children with my highly vascularized and easily punctured internal organs, and possibly a heavy textbook and a pair of scissors. That’s long odds against a delusional young man with a head full of spiders and a gun or three. I will likely die doing what I can to save YOUR children, not mine, and it won’t be much.

I’ll try this again since some of you are unusually thickheaded – LET TEACHERS WITH CHL CARRY ON CAMPUS – CHL holders train more often than the police, have a better record for both accuracy of fire and obeying the law than the police, and they do it on their own dime. The only ones who will carry on campus are the ones who know that can do what is necessary come that dark day.

Mass murder is uncommon worldwide, yet still happens in virtually all countries at some time. Cultures other than ours do not generally commit their mass murders with guns, however – there are other cultural preferences. For instance, some cultures traditionally use explosives to settle “issues”; other cultures prefer arson in the middle of the night. Or poison. All are equally deadly in terms of mass murder, but do not show up in the “gun violence” statistics – because no guns were used. The victims are just as dead as if killed by a gun, however.

Here’s the political reality: Our country is split roughly 50-50 between those who lean Republican and Democrat. There are virtually no anti-gun Republicans, but a lot of pro-gun Democrats. Thus any attempt to go after guns will only make a portion of their base feel good, while costing them votes. Further, gun rights is one of the issues that tends to have a lot of single issue-voters in favor of it, which is very powerful. Something like 70% of the nation wants the border closed off, but the politicians never do it because they want to cowtow to the racial single-issue voters and know that that 70% doesn’t care enough to vote against them for their inaction.
Finally, when looking at opinion polls related to guns it’s important to note that every poll cited by the media is taken immediately in the aftermath of a well publicized mass shooting, to shift the numbers as far as possible in their desired direction. The fact that even after this around 50% of the country wants no new restrictions indicates a strong base floor of support for 2nd amendment rights. If the Democrats expend a lot of time and energy on this it will cost them elections like it did in the past, I hope they’re dumb enough to try.

All libtards play the victimology card: “There’s no real criminals nor crimes, because we’re all really only victims anyway! The murderer was “disturbed,” not evil!”

i.e: He’s giving all the past and potential murderers this excuse in advance: “You aren’t responsible for your own actions, because you can always say “I didn’t do it! Only my brain did it! Whee!”

As you correctly note: these idolaters want it to be a hardware, (chemical imbalance) excuse, not a software (where we have to take personal self-reliant responsibility for our own actions) issue.

They pretend they doesn’t understand that, since the cops and military will still have access to these weapons (and they’re humans) then their relatives and other criminals who, by definition, will always disobey any and all written laws, will still always have access to them anyway!

The only ones who won’t, will be the school officials who fear for their job security, and all their other potential law-abiding innocent victims!

Yet their argument of non-compus-mentis is always disproven: these aren’t mentally ill psych victims – they PROVE their own mental competence statistically by the fact that they always calculatingly CHOOSE to ONLY attack areas where they know their potential victims have already been disarmed and unable to defend themselves by these kinds of evil, criminally negligent gun-control and no-gun-zone area “laws!”

Proof texting. I see that it’s not confined to theology. Actually, come to think of it, this IS a kind of theology.

Yes, social problems are an obvious factor. Russia’s and South Africa’s particular problems are directly related to their cultural reactions to (relatively) recent historical events. Venezuela has a fractured and shambolic police force (many of them, actually). Are you suggesting that the US is comparable? Or are you just looking for any old argument that means you don’t have to give up your bang sticks?

Compare the US to countries with similar levels of political stability, law enforcement effectiveness, wealth and development and social cohesion and there’s no argument – more guns means more violence. You guys are the stand-out example.

Or rather – lack of effective regulation on ACCESS to guns means more violence. Anyone in australia can go buy a hand gun if they wanted to. Except that they’d need to explain why, and somebody will question that explanation. If you say you need it for your job, then just show why. If you’re a sporting shooter, show evidence of membership of a club and attendance at sporting events. If you’re a primary producer and need a repeating rifle for killing wild pigs (seriously, very dangerous animals) then that can be managed as well.

Point being – “I need a handgun so I can be down with my homeys” isn’t enough. “I want to shoot people who try to break into my house” is also not accepted (although, if you really do believe that, you’ll just comply with another category and you’re fine – at least you’ll get some practice, and people will know your situation). You’ll also need to show that you’re keeping it safely secured, so your kids can’t find it and shoot themselves (no, they’re not all 17yo gang-bangers)

Yep, sure, you have a second amendment, which you’ve chosen to half-ignore so that any untrained, undisciplined booze-addled lunatic can keep a semi-automatic firearm under a blanket in the cupboard, and you’ve peddled an (ahistorical) wild-west fantasy about everyone effectively defending themselves against (apparently very stupid) armed attackers (by all means – pay a few people minimum wage to walk around schools with guns – guess who’ll be shot first, next time?).

The only good thing about all of this is that the rest of the world is seeing this experiment, and we we’re taking note. Australia’s PM back in 1996 specifically made mention of not wanting to go down the US path. He’s repeated those comments since. Last I checked, john howard is a bit of a darling of the US right, too.

I’m lying? Again – if I were one of you bozos, I’d puff up my chest and post some stern-seeming retort about “how dare you” and “if I were there you wouldn’t say that” and similar sort of rubbish.

But usually, when accusing somebody of lying – by omission or otherwise – it’s considered reasonable (by many) to back it up with examples. I’m just saying.

Now, as for your bizarre parable …

I’m not sure if you’re trying to say I’m advocating that nonsense, or if … I have no idea. Maybe next time you’ll wait until you’re sober and THEN hit “submit comment”.

A road is not an inherently dangerous thing. People need legal ways to cross a road. If you take away all of the legal ways to cross a road then, yes, they will have to cross illegally … but nobody is proposing to do that. And never, in the history of common sense, has anyone removed a crossing because it was “poorly located”. It it was poorly located, then nobody would use it. If pedestrians need a crossing at that point, then it is – by definition – an appropriately-located crossing. Are you suggesting that american drivers are so incompetent that there are just certain places where they are incapable of depressing the brake pedal?

I’m sorry. But I think that was a rubbish analogy. Even the pro-gun wingnuts here would surely agree. Unless they can explain it in relevant terms, of course.

I’ll try to make it clear, since you can’t seem to wrap your mind around the example..

Australia has removed some of its total of guns. Britain did the same thing. Japan has less guns in general circulation than the US along with Canada…

Well, I live by the Canadian border. A number of years ago, a study was done attempting to show that the gun crime rate was higher in Seattle than Vancouver, BC. And yes, there was a higher overall PERCENTAGE of crimes committed with firearms in Seattle, but the researchers “cherry picked” the data since the raw data didn’t show what they wanted.

They IGNORED the actual crime rates in Vancouver compared with Seattle.

The preferred weapon of a large percentage of the Asian gangs in Vancouver is a KNIFE. Why? Well, several reasons, as told to me by several Mounties, (the RCMP,) that I have talked with over the years, and has to do mostly with the ‘cultural’ view the gang members have. You see, the use of a knife is both up close and PERSONAL plus quiet.

They can get fully automatic weapons via the drug pipelines anytime they want, they just don’t CHOOSE to use them as an ‘everyday’ weapon. (Just ask the Mounties, if you don’t believe me.)

The crime rate in Britain is going through the roof. ‘Hot’ burglaries are about 40%, (people are home,) where in the US it is much lower.

Here in the US, the criminals THEMSELVES tell researchers that they fear an armed home owner above all else.

Crap, even the staunchly ‘no guns’ Bobbies are now being armed with handguns because of the increase in violence perpetrated against them..

The suicide rate in Japan is much higher that the US, and yes, they don’t generally use guns for that final act of desperation, but never the less, they still manage to kill themselves pretty efficiently.

Your last unsubstantiated less guns = less crime is pure bullcrap, as evidenced by the explosion of gun ownership in the US, while the crime rate is steadily dropping. (Per FBI Uniform Crime Statistics.)

Do a quick check of areas where gun ownership is high and carry laws are ‘liberal’ versus areas where private gun ownership is extremely difficult and carry outside of the home is virtually impossible. WaDC, NYC, Chicago, LA, etc. There is a marked difference in the crime rates, and it is not favorable towards the areas with restrictive “gun control”. Look it up for yourself, as I know you won’t believe me or anybody else on this board.

The “lying by omission” is that deliberate exclusion of ‘uncooked’ statistics that support my claim, plus the refusal to include what is happening to the overall crime rates in Australia and Britain SINCE their respective ‘gun bans.’

So your claim, Techno, is that there is nobody in Australia who could buy any gun illegally?

Why won’t you just admit that, plainly stated, you are proposing that here in the US lawful citizens be disarmed in an environment where unlawful persons, i.e., criminals, are and will continue to be armed with their weapons of choice. That is your proposal and that is the proposal of libruls, progressives and other Lefties. That is just one more reason why we fear but recognize that all Lefties deep down are truly and simply nuts.

Another example. Nota Bene: Paul Krugman, a top librul opinion-maker [see 'Memeorandum' aggregater every damned day], who claims it is perfectly OK, and even essential, for an out of control government to keep borrowing, and in fact increase borrowing, and spending more and more and more and more…

“So your claim, Techno, is that there is nobody in Australia who could buy any gun illegally?”

Er, no. I don’t believe I made any such claim. All countries will have a problem with illegal guns – even countries like the US which already hand legal guns out to anyone who wants them.

The trick is (and I know this might sound radical) to deal with the gun black market as well. Actually police effectively. There are efforts under way at the moment in australia to track the way guns move from the legal to the illegal markets. We currently have a philosophical dispute between “sporting shooters” and the nation’s police about whether illegal guns are imported (the theory preferred by the pro-gun lobby) or if they’re previously legally-owned guns that fall through the cracks (currently believed by the police). In a year or three, I think we’ll start to find out.

The cat has been put amongst the pigeons a bit, this week, after our public broadcaster revealed the results of their investigation into the state of security (i.e. corruption) in Customs at Sydney airport. I think that’s epic, and the result of woeful care-factor by two successive governments, both of whom were well and truly warned by a whistle-blower back in 2005. But I digress.

The problem you have is in demonstrating that these illegal guns actually pose the problem you claim. See, I think it’s just a hypothetical, supporting the position that you shouldn’t lose your bang sticks because you’re using them to defend yourself … which I very much doubt.

“Why won’t you just admit that, plainly stated, you are proposing that here in the US lawful citizens be disarmed in an environment where unlawful persons, i.e., criminals, are and will continue to be armed with their weapons of choice”

No, I’m proposing to disarm EVERYONE who doesn’t have a legitimate need to own or carry a firearm. That particularly includes the bad guys – that’s the whole point. As long as everybody has a gun, it’s impossible to police the movement and ownership of all guns – legal or illegal.

“That is your proposal and that is the proposal of libruls, progressives and other Lefties. That is just one more reason why we fear but recognize that all Lefties deep down are truly and simply nuts.”

Again – just look at every other developed country in the world with more strict gun laws, and how it affects their crime rates. There really is no doubt – more strict (and properly implemented) gun laws = less crime, and far less injury and death.

As for your paul krugman quote – (a) I don’t think it’s relevant, and (b) I very much doubt that’s what he said anyway.

“No, I’m proposing to disarm EVERYONE who doesn’t have a legitimate need to own or carry a firearm.”

Oh, what a relief. I thought you were in favor of banning guns. So my owning and carrying a gun to defend myself against severe bodily harm or death is OK, because it is a legitimate need. You do understand, then, that every elected official in the US swears (or avers) to protect and defend our Constitution, which recognizes the same right you do, i.e., “…to keep and bear arms…” Forgive me for doubting your sincerity and/or veracity.

Techno: “Again – just look at every other developed country in the world with more strict gun laws, and how it affects their crime rates. There really is no doubt – more strict (and properly implemented) gun laws = less crime, and far less injury and death.”

I’m afraid you are seeing the forest without noticing the trees, my good friend. Look at the smaller picture. Most of our shooting crimes take place in larger cities like Chicago (do re mi mi mi, ‘Chicago is my home town’) and are black on black crimes.

Chicago has had the kind of rigid gun laws progressives love. Just for example, when I lived there citizens were accountable to retreat from their homes (leave) in the event of a home invasion, rather than defend themselves and their loved ones in the home with a fire arm. Recently, Chicago has lost court cases because of their knee-jerk reaction to fire arms and self-defense.

“Australia has removed some of its total of guns. Britain did the same thing”

You make it sound like they were just randomly selected by ballot or something. No. Australia and britain removed some very specific guns.

“Well, I live by the Canadian border. A number of years ago, a study was done attempting to show that the gun crime rate was higher in Seattle than Vancouver, BC. And yes, there was a higher overall PERCENTAGE of crimes committed with firearms in Seattle, but the researchers “cherry picked” the data since the raw data didn’t show what they wanted”

A quick scan tells me that it was a big argument, and the results seemed to be that vancouver had higher levels of property crime, but lower levels of violent crime. I’m not quite sure where any of that is going.

“The crime rate in Britain is going through the roof”

No, it isn’t. It just isn’t. That’s flat-out not true. Go check the UK office of national statistics (google “Trends in Crime – A Short Story, December 2011″). Don’t stop there – go and check that claim for yourself. Crime in england and wales has been steadily falling since the handgun ban in 1996 (although I suspect that other factors were probably more important). The only category which has risen seems to be reported sexual assaults – but that could just be because people report them now (a depressingly recent phenomenon, and still not anywhere near as complete as one would like – a hot topic here in australia, after a recent high-profile abduction/rape/murder).

“‘Hot’ burglaries are about 40%, (people are home,) where in the US it is much lower.”

But what are the basic figures? 40% of less is still less.

“Here in the US, the criminals THEMSELVES tell researchers that they fear an armed home owner above all else.”

And yet, in the most heavily armed country in the world, there are still criminals.

“Crap, even the staunchly ‘no guns’ Bobbies are now being armed with handguns”

No, they aren’t. At least not in england (northern ireland is different, and always has been). There are specific circumstances where police DO carry guns, but not the bobby on the beat.

“The suicide rate in Japan is much higher that the US, and yes, they don’t generally use guns for that final act of desperation, but never the less, they still manage to kill themselves pretty efficiently”

Yep. Japan has a bizarre suicide thing, yes. There are always going to be outliers.

“There is a marked difference in the crime rates, and it is not favorable towards the areas with restrictive “gun control”. Look it up for yourself”

I will, but at some point I’m going to have to go do some work (christmas eve, I know)

“as I know you won’t believe me or anybody else on this board”

I’ve already conceded points to people on this subject.

“The “lying by omission” is that deliberate exclusion of ‘uncooked’ statistics that support my claim, plus the refusal to include what is happening to the overall crime rates in Australia and Britain SINCE their respective ‘gun bans.’”

But that’s the problem – what has happened to crime rates in australia and britain doesn’t support your position.

An armed citizenry is a direct threat to the power monopoly of the state. The progressive anti-colonalists (Globalists) see that for their totalitarian statist utopia. There is a very ridgid idealogy at work here. America will turn into the Land of the Subjects. If you think you now tyranny like BHO said “you ain’t seen nothing yet”.